Yet another drive-through story

[Preston Crawford]

So my wife and I are out for a bike ride today. Getting groceries,
grabbing lunch and we decide to go by McDonalds. My wife has been
talking for a few days about how they have this fruit and yogurt salad
that's actually pretty good. So, curious, I decide I'll try it, so we
pull up through the drive through.

To make a long story short, they first refused to serve us and when I
asked why they didn't have a reason other than someone might hit us and
McDonalds would be liable (they still serve coffee, don't they?).
Eventually they said they'd serve us "just this once".

When I get to the windows I said. "Just really quick. So you know, I was
once over 400lbs. My wife was over 360lbs. We've each lost over 150lbs.
Part of how we got there was eating 20 piece McNuggets and value meals
super-sized. Now you have to understand the irony that after 5 years of
not eating at your restaurant I decide to check out something on your
menu that is healthy and you won't let me order on my bike."

The lady admitted she saw the irony, reiterated the imminent danger of
cyclists going through the drive-through. Which is weird because I do
this all the time without hassle at banks, pharmacies, etc. So my
question is, what is so different about restaurants, that we always
hear about/experience these incidents and not other drive-througs?

Preston

[Maggie]

Preston Crawford wrote:
what is so different about restaurants, that we always
> hear about/experience these incidents and not other drive-througs?
>
> Preston

Holy crap....you can't possibly live in New Jersey. I stop at the
Mickey Dee's drive thru to get coffee. Well, I did when I had a car to
drive. I would never, ever get in that line on a bicycle. It is crazy
in the morning. Everyone is in a hurry, there is a mile long line,
People are checking to see if they got all their food while pulling out
of the drive thru and its an absolute nut house. Everyone gets backed
up. The people in back of you keep inching forward while fumbling
through their purse to get their money and your lucky if they put their
brake on at all while in line.

If your fast food lines are different, then I don't see a problem, but
if I ever saw a cyclist in the line I used to go through in the morning
I would think he or she were on a suicide mission. I'm certainly not
going through it now that I have to bike it.

How much of a problem is it to go inside? How long does it take to
lock up the bike? In this part of the world, the drive thru lines are
jammed and if you actually take the time to get out of your car there
is no one inside the place.

I started going into the bank recently to find no one standing in line
while 44 cars were taking up three lanes of the drive thru.

Maggie.

[Preston Crawford]

On 2005-05-31, Maggie > wrote:
>
>
> Preston Crawford wrote:
> what is so different about restaurants, that we always
>> hear about/experience these incidents and not other drive-througs?
>>
>> Preston
>
> Holy crap....you can't possibly live in New Jersey. I stop at the
> Mickey Dee's drive thru to get coffee. Well, I did when I had a car to
> drive. I would never, ever get in that line on a bicycle. It is crazy
> in the morning. Everyone is in a hurry, there is a mile long line,

What would be so weird about riding a bike even in that situation? Road
ragers aside, it doesn't take any longer on a bike than in a car.

> of the drive thru and its an absolute nut house. Everyone gets backed
> up. The people in back of you keep inching forward while fumbling
> through their purse to get their money and your lucky if they put their
> brake on at all while in line.

Wouldn't they hit another car then? Weird.

> How much of a problem is it to go inside? How long does it take to
> lock up the bike? In this part of the world, the drive thru lines are
> jammed and if you actually take the time to get out of your car there
> is no one inside the place.

It takes longer to lock up a bike and go inside than it does just to go
through the drive-through. Especially when you're heading on your way
with something to take home, as we were. Besides, no bike racks, nor
anything remotely safe to lock it to, at least not at this McDs.

The irony in this situation is that we were completely alone in the
drive-through.

> I started going into the bank recently to find no one standing in line
> while 44 cars were taking up three lanes of the drive thru.
>
> Maggie.

Well, it's always a matter of choice. I won't wait in a long line when I
have the flexibility to go inside. But generally going inside takes
longer here in Portland, Oregon.

Preston

[jj]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 20:07:29 -0500, Preston Crawford
> wrote:

>On 2005-05-31, Maggie > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Preston Crawford wrote:
>> what is so different about restaurants, that we always
>>> hear about/experience these incidents and not other drive-througs?
>>>
>>> Preston
>>
>> Holy crap....you can't possibly live in New Jersey. I stop at the
>> Mickey Dee's drive thru to get coffee. Well, I did when I had a car to
>> drive. I would never, ever get in that line on a bicycle. It is crazy
>> in the morning. Everyone is in a hurry, there is a mile long line,
>
>What would be so weird about riding a bike even in that situation? Road
>ragers aside, it doesn't take any longer on a bike than in a car.
>
>> of the drive thru and its an absolute nut house. Everyone gets backed
>> up. The people in back of you keep inching forward while fumbling
>> through their purse to get their money and your lucky if they put their
>> brake on at all while in line.
>
>Wouldn't they hit another car then? Weird.

You're not reading between the lines Prestion. Maggie is trying to say that
if you got in line at a McDonalds on a bike in New Jersey, that people
would not be able to restrain themselves from running you over, because,
dammit, you deserve it for doing such a dumb thing.

When are you going to realize that if you do something like wear colorful
lycra in her part of town, or ride your bike where you shouldn't in
NEWJERSEY, that people are going to either shoot you or run you over - it's
their right to do so, because, dammit, you're such a dumbass for pulling
such a stunt, and need desperately to be taught a lesson!

"Gee officer, it serves him right getting run over, and to make my point I
backed up and ran over his skinny lycra-clad butt again!"

Hope that clears it up for you. <g>

jj

[Matt O'Toole]

Preston Crawford wrote:

> So my wife and I are out for a bike ride today. Getting groceries,
> grabbing lunch and we decide to go by McDonalds. My wife has been
> talking for a few days about how they have this fruit and yogurt salad
> that's actually pretty good. So, curious, I decide I'll try it, so we
> pull up through the drive through.
>
> To make a long story short, they first refused to serve us and when I
> asked why they didn't have a reason other than someone might hit us
> and McDonalds would be liable (they still serve coffee, don't they?).
> Eventually they said they'd serve us "just this once".
>
> When I get to the windows I said. "Just really quick. So you know, I
> was once over 400lbs. My wife was over 360lbs. We've each lost over
> 150lbs. Part of how we got there was eating 20 piece McNuggets and
> value meals super-sized. Now you have to understand the irony that
> after 5 years of not eating at your restaurant I decide to check out
> something on your menu that is healthy and you won't let me order on
> my bike."
>
> The lady admitted she saw the irony, reiterated the imminent danger of
> cyclists going through the drive-through. Which is weird because I do
> this all the time without hassle at banks, pharmacies, etc. So my
> question is, what is so different about restaurants, that we always
> hear about/experience these incidents and not other drive-througs?

They have typical corporate lawyers who are experts at sniffing out every
possible liability, but don't know their heads from their you-know-whats when it
comes to assessing actual risk. Yet they feel free to make grand proclaimations
about it anyway. This arrogance pervades the legal profession.

I'd love to know what's more dangerous about a fast food drive-through than the
roads you just rode in from. I bet McDonald's is far more likely to have you to
sue them for a slip and fall injury in their dining room than some kind of
bicycle mishap in their drive-through. But I'm not a wormy lawyer trying to
come up with esoteric possibilities to impress my boardroom colleagues with,
"Gee Bob, great point, never woulda thoughta that..."

Write to management. Tell them to quit persecuting bicyclists, and turn down
the heat on their coffee instead. Risk assessment again -- common sense.

Better yet -- quit eating that crap.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

Preston Crawford wrote:

> On 2005-05-31, Maggie > wrote:

>> How much of a problem is it to go inside? How long does it take to
>> lock up the bike? In this part of the world, the drive thru lines
>> are jammed and if you actually take the time to get out of your car
>> there is no one inside the place.
>
> It takes longer to lock up a bike and go inside than it does just to
> go through the drive-through. Especially when you're heading on your
> way with something to take home, as we were. Besides, no bike racks,
> nor anything remotely safe to lock it to, at least not at this McDs.

> Well, it's always a matter of choice. I won't wait in a long line
> when I have the flexibility to go inside. But generally going inside
> takes longer here in Portland, Oregon.

Just take the bike inside with you. If they object, tell 'em it's your
wheelchair.

I take my bike inside everywhere. No one ever says anything. But then again I
never go to fast food joints either.

Matt O.

[OnTwoWheels]

"Matt O'Toole" > wrote in message
...

>
> I'd love to know what's more dangerous about a fast food drive-through
than the
> roads you just rode in from.

The toxins they try to pass off as food?

[Michael]

Preston Crawford wrote:
>
> So my wife and I are out for a bike ride today. Getting groceries,
> grabbing lunch and we decide to go by McDonalds. My wife has been
> talking for a few days about how they have this fruit and yogurt salad
> that's actually pretty good. So, curious, I decide I'll try it, so we
> pull up through the drive through.
>
> To make a long story short, they first refused to serve us and when I
> asked why they didn't have a reason other than someone might hit us and
> McDonalds would be liable (they still serve coffee, don't they?).
> Eventually they said they'd serve us "just this once".
>
> When I get to the windows I said. "Just really quick. So you know, I was
> once over 400lbs. My wife was over 360lbs. We've each lost over 150lbs.
> Part of how we got there was eating 20 piece McNuggets and value meals
> super-sized. Now you have to understand the irony that after 5 years of
> not eating at your restaurant I decide to check out something on your
> menu that is healthy and you won't let me order on my bike."
>
> The lady admitted she saw the irony, reiterated the imminent danger of
> cyclists going through the drive-through. Which is weird because I do
> this all the time without hassle at banks, pharmacies, etc. So my
> question is, what is so different about restaurants, that we always
> hear about/experience these incidents and not other drive-througs?
>
> Preston



Been "there" myself, though my experience was at Wendy's. I don't understand
the logic any more than you do. I was surprised, did not anticipate refusal.
Girl gave me the liability spiel and pointed to the prominent sign stuck to the
service window. Yep, it was posted. Sux.

[Michael]

Preston Crawford wrote:
(snip)
> Besides, no bike racks, nor
> anything remotely safe to lock it to, at least not at this McDs.
(snip)

Look closely. You might find gas pipes to hitch to. My MickeyD's gas service
is on one side of the bldg., just to the rear of the fire exit. Nice wad of 2"
pipes and gas meter. Hitching is easy with whatever lock you happen to have; my
U-lock or cable clock (depending on which bike I have) are accommodated equally
well.

[Preston Crawford]

On 2005-05-31, Matt O'Toole > wrote:
> Preston Crawford wrote:
>
>> So my wife and I are out for a bike ride today. Getting groceries,
>> grabbing lunch and we decide to go by McDonalds. My wife has been
>> talking for a few days about how they have this fruit and yogurt salad
>> that's actually pretty good. So, curious, I decide I'll try it, so we
>> pull up through the drive through.
>>
>> To make a long story short, they first refused to serve us and when I
>> asked why they didn't have a reason other than someone might hit us
>> and McDonalds would be liable (they still serve coffee, don't they?).
>> Eventually they said they'd serve us "just this once".
>>
>> When I get to the windows I said. "Just really quick. So you know, I
>> was once over 400lbs. My wife was over 360lbs. We've each lost over
>> 150lbs. Part of how we got there was eating 20 piece McNuggets and
>> value meals super-sized. Now you have to understand the irony that
>> after 5 years of not eating at your restaurant I decide to check out
>> something on your menu that is healthy and you won't let me order on
>> my bike."
>>
>> The lady admitted she saw the irony, reiterated the imminent danger of
>> cyclists going through the drive-through. Which is weird because I do
>> this all the time without hassle at banks, pharmacies, etc. So my
>> question is, what is so different about restaurants, that we always
>> hear about/experience these incidents and not other drive-througs?
>
> They have typical corporate lawyers who are experts at sniffing out every
> possible liability, but don't know their heads from their you-know-whats when it
> comes to assessing actual risk. Yet they feel free to make grand proclaimations
> about it anyway. This arrogance pervades the legal profession.

Of course. But I've worked in fast food, personally. Not long ago. Back
in college in the mid to late 90s. And I don't ever recall any such rule
anywhere I worked. It seems like one of those arbitrary "it's just weird
so it must be against the rules" decisions.

> I'd love to know what's more dangerous about a fast food drive-through than the
> roads you just rode in from. I bet McDonald's is far more likely to have you to
> sue them for a slip and fall injury in their dining room than some kind of

Of course. Legally one would think. Nevermind they still serve coffee.

> Write to management. Tell them to quit persecuting bicyclists, and turn down
> the heat on their coffee instead. Risk assessment again -- common sense.
>
> Better yet -- quit eating that crap.
>
> Matt O.

I think you missed the point. Re-read my post. I made a point of noting
to the manager that because I changed lifestyles to get healthier (I
lost over 170lbs at one point) I hadn't been to a McDs in 5 years. The
only thing that made me go today was to try out this fruit salad (which
wasn't that bad, actually). Just curious. You never know when you're on
a road trip in the middle of nowhere and need to grab *something* to
eat.

Preston

[Preston Crawford]

On 2005-05-31, jj > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 20:07:29 -0500, Preston Crawford
> wrote:
>
>>On 2005-05-31, Maggie > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Preston Crawford wrote:
>>> what is so different about restaurants, that we always
>>>> hear about/experience these incidents and not other drive-througs?
>>>>
>>>> Preston
>>>
>>> Holy crap....you can't possibly live in New Jersey. I stop at the
>>> Mickey Dee's drive thru to get coffee. Well, I did when I had a car to
>>> drive. I would never, ever get in that line on a bicycle. It is crazy
>>> in the morning. Everyone is in a hurry, there is a mile long line,
>>
>>What would be so weird about riding a bike even in that situation? Road
>>ragers aside, it doesn't take any longer on a bike than in a car.
>>
>>> of the drive thru and its an absolute nut house. Everyone gets backed
>>> up. The people in back of you keep inching forward while fumbling
>>> through their purse to get their money and your lucky if they put their
>>> brake on at all while in line.
>>
>>Wouldn't they hit another car then? Weird.
>
> You're not reading between the lines Prestion. Maggie is trying to say that
> if you got in line at a McDonalds on a bike in New Jersey, that people
> would not be able to restrain themselves from running you over, because,
> dammit, you deserve it for doing such a dumb thing.

Maybe in New Jersey that applies. In Portland not only is it not a dumb
thing, but it's quite regular.

> When are you going to realize that if you do something like wear colorful
> lycra in her part of town, or ride your bike where you shouldn't in
> NEWJERSEY, that people are going to either shoot you or run you over - it's
> their right to do so, because, dammit, you're such a dumbass for pulling
> such a stunt, and need desperately to be taught a lesson!
>
> "Gee officer, it serves him right getting run over, and to make my point I
> backed up and ran over his skinny lycra-clad butt again!"
>
> Hope that clears it up for you. <g>

I get it now. Thanks.

Preston

[[email protected]]

Maggie wrote:
> Preston Crawford wrote:
> what is so different about restaurants, that we always
> > hear about/experience these incidents and not other drive-througs?
> >
> > Preston
>
> Holy crap....you can't possibly live in New Jersey. I stop at the
> Mickey Dee's drive thru to get coffee. Well, I did when I had a car to
> drive. I would never, ever get in that line on a bicycle. It is crazy
> in the morning. Everyone is in a hurry, there is a mile long line,
> People are checking to see if they got all their food while pulling out
> of the drive thru and its an absolute nut house. Everyone gets backed
> up. The people in back of you keep inching forward while fumbling
> through their purse to get their money and your lucky if they put their
> brake on at all while in line.
>

Holy crap is everywhere, Maggie. From the East of New Jersey to West
of Los Angeleno. I hardly order food while on driving or driving at
bank window. I can't do two thing together and I'm not in hurry...




> If your fast food lines are different, then I don't see a problem, but
> if I ever saw a cyclist in the line I used to go through in the morning
> I would think he or she were on a suicide mission. I'm certainly not
> going through it now that I have to bike it.
>

Ride a bike and order a food??? That's very funny! ahhaha...


> How much of a problem is it to go inside? How long does it take to
> lock up the bike? In this part of the world, the drive thru lines are
> jammed and if you actually take the time to get out of your car there
> is no one inside the place.
>

BAd thing about riding a big expense bike is you have to worry your
bike and taking hour to lock up. That's why I ride a damn old cheap
bike and I don't have to lock a bike. My bike is older than a homeless
guy's bike.



> I started going into the bank recently to find no one standing in line
> while 44 cars were taking up three lanes of the drive thru.
>


What's the point about that?


> Maggie.

[Maggie]

jj wrote:
>
> You're not reading between the lines Prestion. Maggie is trying to say that
> if you got in line at a McDonalds on a bike in New Jersey, that people
> would not be able to restrain themselves from running you over, because,
> dammit, you deserve it for doing such a dumb thing.
>

You got it jj. So stay the hell out of Jersey. ;-) I live in a
congested area. That is what is between the lines. We have alot of
traffic and alot of people. I'm not out in the midwest where the pace
of life is slower and everyone says howdy to you when you walk down the
street. Where do you live? I wrote to Preston and said.."if his drive
thru's were different, I don't see a problem either." I was just
thinking of the safety issue on a bike around here.

Two weeks ago they filmed the first episode of "The Sopranos" in the
town where I work. They used the Funeral Parlor and another store. I
watched the filming of the Funeral. It was cool to watch but I think
that show is giving our area a bad name. Even though I love the show
and got autographs. :-)

I live in NJ and work in commercial construction....gee, I must be the
wife of Don Provolone. ;-)

Maggie

[Rich]

Preston Crawford wrote:

> The lady admitted she saw the irony, reiterated the imminent danger of
> cyclists going through the drive-through. Which is weird because I do
> this all the time without hassle at banks, pharmacies, etc. So my
> question is, what is so different about restaurants, that we always
> hear about/experience these incidents and not other drive-througs?

Perhaps fast food places don't want teenagers going through the drive
through on bikes, messing around, holding up the line. But since they
can't have different rules based on age, they say it's a safety issue.

Teenagers don't really visit banks and pharmacies much so those places
don't have the problem.

Rich

[Ken]

"Preston Crawford" > wrote in message
...
> So my wife and I are out for a bike ride today. Getting groceries,
> grabbing lunch and we decide to go by McDonalds. My wife has been
> talking for a few days about how they have this fruit and yogurt salad
> that's actually pretty good. So, curious, I decide I'll try it, so we
> pull up through the drive through.
>
> To make a long story short, they first refused to serve us and when I
> asked why they didn't have a reason other than someone might hit us and
> McDonalds would be liable (they still serve coffee, don't they?).
> Eventually they said they'd serve us "just this once".
>
> When I get to the windows I said. "Just really quick. So you know, I was
> once over 400lbs. My wife was over 360lbs. We've each lost over 150lbs.
> Part of how we got there was eating 20 piece McNuggets and value meals
> super-sized. Now you have to understand the irony that after 5 years of
> not eating at your restaurant I decide to check out something on your
> menu that is healthy and you won't let me order on my bike."
>
> The lady admitted she saw the irony, reiterated the imminent danger of
> cyclists going through the drive-through. Which is weird because I do
> this all the time without hassle at banks, pharmacies, etc. So my
> question is, what is so different about restaurants, that we always
> hear about/experience these incidents and not other drive-througs?
>
> Preston

Nothing as good as that but the last time I went to the driveup atm I got
some strange looks!

Ken

[GaryG]

"Maggie" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> jj wrote:
> >
> > You're not reading between the lines Prestion. Maggie is trying to say
that
> > if you got in line at a McDonalds on a bike in New Jersey, that people
> > would not be able to restrain themselves from running you over, because,
> > dammit, you deserve it for doing such a dumb thing.
> >
>
> You got it jj. So stay the hell out of Jersey. ;-)

Hell would have to freeze over before I ever considered cycling, much less
living, in Jersey (based primarily on your descriptions of it).

> I live in a
> congested area. That is what is between the lines. We have alot of
> traffic and alot of people.

I rode for a week last year in France. The roads were narrow, and the
cities were crowded. And, yet, there were bikes everywhere with none of the
problems you describe.

Perhaps the problems in Jersey have less to do with the congestion on the
roads than they do with the mental congestion of its residents.

GG

> I'm not out in the midwest where the pace
> of life is slower and everyone says howdy to you when you walk down the
> street. Where do you live? I wrote to Preston and said.."if his drive
> thru's were different, I don't see a problem either." I was just
> thinking of the safety issue on a bike around here.
>
> Two weeks ago they filmed the first episode of "The Sopranos" in the
> town where I work. They used the Funeral Parlor and another store. I
> watched the filming of the Funeral. It was cool to watch but I think
> that show is giving our area a bad name. Even though I love the show
> and got autographs. :-)
>
> I live in NJ and work in commercial construction....gee, I must be the
> wife of Don Provolone. ;-)
>
> Maggie
>

[Steve Knight]

drive through's are for lazy under timed foolish drivers. why would you want to
go through with a bike?

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

[GaryG]

"Steve Knight" > wrote in message
...
> drive through's are for lazy under timed foolish drivers. why would you
want to
> go through with a bike?
>
> --
> Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
> Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
> See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

So you don't have to worry about locking up your bike and clomping across
their tile floor on your cleats, while sweating in lycra.

--
~_-*
....G/ \G
http://www.CycliStats.com
CycliStats - Software for Cyclists

[Maggie]

GaryG wrote:
>
> Hell would have to freeze over before I ever considered cycling, much less
> living, in Jersey (based primarily on your descriptions of it).
>

Jersey is fabulous. I would not live anywhere else. It suits my
personality.
I am 15 minutes away from NYC but I don't have to live there, I just
jump on the parkway south to get to the great Jersey shore, and if I
want some time in the mountains, I head up north. Four seasons of fun,
close to anything you could want. We have it all. It doesn't get any
better than Jersey. ;-)

Are you buying this???

Maggie.

[GaryG]

"Maggie" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> GaryG wrote:
> >
> > Hell would have to freeze over before I ever considered cycling, much
less
> > living, in Jersey (based primarily on your descriptions of it).
> >
>
> Jersey is fabulous. I would not live anywhere else. It suits my
> personality.
> I am 15 minutes away from NYC but I don't have to live there, I just
> jump on the parkway south to get to the great Jersey shore, and if I
> want some time in the mountains, I head up north. Four seasons of fun,
> close to anything you could want. We have it all. It doesn't get any
> better than Jersey. ;-)
>
> Are you buying this???
>
> Maggie.

Not really :-).

That said, one kind find beauty in most places, if you look for it. My only
actual experience of Jersey was driving the turnpike up to NYC back in the
late 80's...from that perspective, it didn't look (or smell) very good. But
I've heard the Pine Barrens are pretty cool, and proximity to NYC is a plus
if you're into that sort of thing.

Regardless, I think I'll stay here in northern California where my bank
never complains when I ride up to their drive-through, and where I can see
snow-capped mountains from my deck.

GG

[Maggie]

GaryG wrote:
> Regardless, I think I'll stay here in northern California where my bank
> never complains when I ride up to their drive-through, and where I can see
> snow-capped mountains from my deck.
>
> GG

Ok...you got me on the snow capped mountains. Everytime I go to see my
niece in Nevada I am in awe of the mountains. We had a picnic yesterday
at my house with la familia, and I was showing the video from my last
trip out there in the beginning of May. I must take a hundred pictures
of the mountains and especially the mountains surrounding Lake Tahoe.

I love visiting Tahoe as it is one of the most beautiful places I have
ever seen, but I don't think I could live there. Even the view from
Harrahs Casino in Tahoe is manificent. The ski slopes, the mountains,
the blue, blue sky...yes it is majestic. You can't be anywhere without
seeing those mountains.

But, You can take the girl out of Jersey, but you can't take Jersey out
of the girl. Yet sometimes, just sometimes when I am in Tahoe, I get
the urge to stay there. I can't wait to go back. Three times a year is
a must.

Maggie.

[Claire Petersky]

Preston Crawford wrote in message ...
>On 2005-05-31, Maggie > wrote:

> Besides, no bike racks, nor
>anything remotely safe to lock it to, at least not at this McDs.

We were riding as a family on Monday down the Cedar River trail, on the
look-out for food of any sort anywhere, as we were really rather hungry. I
could detect the fried grease smell before I actually spotted the Taco Time.
We pulled into the lot. There was a bike rack, but it was completely full,
with about six bikes tied up at it. Then there were two more bikes parked on
the side. We ended up setting the two tandems against the boxwood plants
that were edging the foundation of the building. Although it was a holiday
weekend, I'd note that it was completely cloudy and a bit chilly -- I would
imagine that, on a warm summer weekend, the need for bicycle parking might
be even more acute.

While this establishment seemed to recognize that its proximity to a bike
trail (and the only place within sight of the trail for miles) meant that
some of its customers might arrive by bike, it still didn't have sufficient
facilities to accomodate demand.

--
Warm Regards,


Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referr*al/Cpetersky

[gds]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>> Write to management. Tell them to quit persecuting bicyclists, and turn down
> the heat on their coffee instead. Risk assessment again -- common sense.
>
> Better yet -- quit eating that crap.
>


Actually their coffee is pretty good. And most coffe drinkers like it
hot to start with. Other than the coffe I don't find much at fast food
joints to eat. But the coffee often goes well with what I'm carrying to
eat.

[Steve Knight]

'
>So you don't have to worry about locking up your bike and clomping across
>their tile floor on your cleats, while sweating in lycra.

man you sound like a driver have to park and get out of the car and go inside.
life is full of sacrifices.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

[Ben Kaufman]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:52:24 -0700, "GaryG" > wrote:

>"Steve Knight" > wrote in message
...
>> drive through's are for lazy under timed foolish drivers. why would you
>want to
>> go through with a bike?
>>
>> --
>> Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
>> Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
>> See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.
>
>So you don't have to worry about locking up your bike and clomping across
>their tile floor on your cleats, while sweating in lycra.

McDonalds should endorse that. After all, it's pretty hard to hold a
potentially scalding coffee between your legs on the bike...... <g>

Ben

[Ben Kaufman]

On 31 May 2005 16:38:41 -0700, "gds" > wrote:

>
>
>Matt O'Toole wrote:
>>> Write to management. Tell them to quit persecuting bicyclists, and turn down
>> the heat on their coffee instead. Risk assessment again -- common sense.
>>
>> Better yet -- quit eating that crap.
>>
>
>
>Actually their coffee is pretty good. And most coffe drinkers like it
>hot to start with. Other than the coffe I don't find much at fast food
>joints to eat. But the coffee often goes well with what I'm carrying to
>eat.

I will get their low-fat ice cream cone. It's under a buck and is better than
the ice cream vendor down the street who charges $2.35 for a frozen yogurt that
is pumped with so much air that it is terrible.

Ben

[GaryG]

"Steve Knight" > wrote in message
...
>
> '
> >So you don't have to worry about locking up your bike and clomping across
> >their tile floor on your cleats, while sweating in lycra.
>
> man you sound like a driver have to park and get out of the car and go
inside.
> life is full of sacrifices.

Except I'm generally not sweaty while driving, don't have to worry about how
to lock up the car, and generally don't drive while wearing cleats and
lycra. Plus, I rarely carry a lock while cycling.

That said, I can't recall the last time I went through a fast food
drive-through (in the car, or on a bike). The food is all dreck...

GG

>
> --
> Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
> Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
> See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

[lokey]

"Ken" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Preston Crawford" > wrote in message
> ...
>> So my wife and I are out for a bike ride today. Getting groceries,
>> grabbing lunch and we decide to go by McDonalds. My wife has been
>> talking for a few days about how they have this fruit and yogurt salad
>> that's actually pretty good. So, curious, I decide I'll try it, so we
>> pull up through the drive through.
>>
>> To make a long story short, they first refused to serve us and when I
>> asked why they didn't have a reason other than someone might hit us and
>> McDonalds would be liable (they still serve coffee, don't they?).
>> Eventually they said they'd serve us "just this once".
>>
>> When I get to the windows I said. "Just really quick. So you know, I was
>> once over 400lbs. My wife was over 360lbs. We've each lost over 150lbs.
>> Part of how we got there was eating 20 piece McNuggets and value meals
>> super-sized. Now you have to understand the irony that after 5 years of
>> not eating at your restaurant I decide to check out something on your
>> menu that is healthy and you won't let me order on my bike."
>>
>> The lady admitted she saw the irony, reiterated the imminent danger of
>> cyclists going through the drive-through. Which is weird because I do
>> this all the time without hassle at banks, pharmacies, etc. So my
>> question is, what is so different about restaurants, that we always
>> hear about/experience these incidents and not other drive-througs?
>>
>> Preston
>
> Nothing as good as that but the last time I went to the driveup atm I got
> some strange looks!

I don't do McD's. Oh, maybe once or twice a year I'll get a hankering for
junk food but then I'd prefer Wendy's or Harvey's if I'm going to indulge in
near-food caloric substances lacking in any redeeming untraditional
qualities.

I do on occasion give in to the desire for some DQ soft serve. Not long ago
I rode through the DQ drive through. I think I did detect a slight
amusement fromt the staff. They did serve me though.

The thing that bothers me is if there is line up of cars - not a direct
danger - but the thought of waiting in line in the middle of all those
idling autos, sucking back petro-fumes is enough to make me lose my
appetite.

--
'Are you ready? Is the tape move-moving? I can do this in one take!
Don't count on me - what? Well, I'll do the best I can.
I'd like to do a song of great social and political import!!
It goes like this.' -janis joplin pre-ramble to mercedes benz

[lokey]

"Claire Petersky" > wrote in message
...
[...]
> While this establishment seemed to recognize that its proximity to a bike
> trail (and the only place within sight of the trail for miles) meant that
> some of its customers might arrive by bike, it still didn't have
> sufficient
> facilities to accomodate demand.

I nominate Cambridge Ontario as worst bike rack city ever. I recall a trip
through there a year ago. I wanted to stop and lock at an intersection with
the usual commercial/retail plaza sprawl on all 4 corners. I spent 20
minutes fruitlessly looking for a place to lock up.

--
'They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot.' -joni mitchell

[[email protected]]

Rich wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps fast food places don't want teenagers going through the drive
> through on bikes, messing around, holding up the line. But since they
> can't have different rules based on age, they say it's a safety issue.
>
> Teenagers don't really visit banks and pharmacies much so those places
> don't have the problem.

I bet Rich has it figured out.

We've got a couple shopping plazas near here, posted "No bicycles, no
skateboards, no roller blades." The geniuses in charge of the policy
must not be able to imagine an adult using a bike for transportation.

Of course, I ignore such signs.

- Frank Krygowski

[Peter Cole]

wrote:
>
> Rich wrote:
>
>>
>>Perhaps fast food places don't want teenagers going through the drive
>>through on bikes, messing around, holding up the line. But since they
>>can't have different rules based on age, they say it's a safety issue.
>>
>>Teenagers don't really visit banks and pharmacies much so those places
>>don't have the problem.
>
>
> I bet Rich has it figured out.
>
> We've got a couple shopping plazas near here, posted "No bicycles, no
> skateboards, no roller blades." The geniuses in charge of the policy
> must not be able to imagine an adult using a bike for transportation.
>
> Of course, I ignore such signs.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

My favorite story happened a year ago when my wife & daughter biked to a
local mall. Not finding the bike rack in the usual spot, they locked
them to a light pole. Returning an hour later to find the bikes gone and
cut cables on the ground, they reported the theft to a loitering
rent-a-cop. He said their bikes had been confiscated. When my wife
raised a ruckus, he threatened her with arrest.

After reclaiming the bikes and reporting the incident to the mall
management, she got a very nicely written apology and a $50 gift
certificate. The letter also mentioned that the mall wanted to be
welcoming of cyclists and would make sure that policy was understood by
the security people.

[Maggie]

wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> >
> >
> > Perhaps fast food places don't want teenagers going through the drive
> > through on bikes, messing around, holding up the line. But since they
> > can't have different rules based on age, they say it's a safety issue.
> >
> > Teenagers don't really visit banks and pharmacies much so those places
> > don't have the problem.
>
> I bet Rich has it figured out.
>
> We've got a couple shopping plazas near here, posted "No bicycles, no
> skateboards, no roller blades." The geniuses in charge of the policy
> must not be able to imagine an adult using a bike for transportation.
>
> Of course, I ignore such signs.
>
> - Frank Krygowski


I asked my sons friend why bicycles are not allowed at the drive
thru....he works at Burger King.

He told me bicycles are associated with kids and they do not want that
liability or the aggravation.

So yes, Rich does have it figured out. Fast food places cannot imagine
an adult riding their bike up to the window to get burgers and fries to
go. Personally I can't imagine eating their food. Coffee is all I
will pick up there, and its only because of the convenience in the A.M.

Since I am presently without a car....I bring a thermos. One that used
to be inside my sons lunchbox 20 years ago. I think its the Dukes of
Hazard. But it is filled with Gevalia French Roast. ;-)
Maggie

[Claire Petersky]

lokey wrote in message >...

> I do on occasion give in to the desire for some DQ soft serve. Not long
ago
>I rode through the DQ drive through. I think I did detect a slight
>amusement fromt the staff. They did serve me though.

While I wouldn't eat one of their hamburgers, a DQ cone is ok. Rose and I
made a DQ stop on the way home on a long ride a while back, and I confess it
rather hit the spot.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referr*al/Cpetersky

[lokey]

"Claire Petersky" > wrote in message
...
> lokey wrote in message >...
>
>> I do on occasion give in to the desire for some DQ soft serve. Not long
>> ago I rode through the DQ drive through. I think I did detect a slight
>>amusement from the staff. They did serve me though.
>
> While I wouldn't eat one of their hamburgers, a DQ cone is ok. Rose and I
> made a DQ stop on the way home on a long ride a while back, and I confess
> it
> rather hit the spot.

I have never had anything other than ice cream from DQ. Their burgers night
actually taste like pumpkin pie and I wouldn't know.


I either have a small soft serve chocolate dip cone or a small Oreo
blizzard

.... mmmmmmmm...... ice cream!....drooool

--
'I can pull up by the curb
I can make it on the road
Going mobile' -the who

[[email protected]]

Just because I prefer to sit in my car and listen to music or the radio
rather than stand in line by myself, bored stiff means I'm foolish? I
guess you really have no clue about why I would do it.

[Maggie]

Ben Kaufman wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:52:24 -0700, "GaryG" > wrote:
> McDonalds should endorse that. After all, it's pretty hard to hold a
> potentially scalding coffee between your legs on the bike...... <g>
>
> Ben

This is no lie. One of my relatives in Nevada bikes to work every
single day. Loves riding. But every morning it is with a cup of coffee
in one hand and a cigarette dangling from the mouth. It is quite a
sight. No lie. Die hard mountain biker, die hard coffee and cigarette
junkie. Would not think of buying a car.

Maggie.

[Jasper Janssen]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:11:10 -0700, "GaryG" >
wrote:

>I rode for a week last year in France. The roads were narrow, and the
>cities were crowded. And, yet, there were bikes everywhere with none of the
>problems you describe.
>
>Perhaps the problems in Jersey have less to do with the congestion on the
>roads than they do with the mental congestion of its residents.

Did you try the Place de la Concorde? The stories (possibly Urban Legends,
but also quite possibly not, given my observations from the sidewalk
there) say that insurance for cars often specifically excludes driving
there, due to the high failure rate, in the same way that bicycle theft
insurance here specifically excludes Amsterdam Central Station, if not all
train stations.


Jasper

[Jasper Janssen]

On 31 May 2005 02:12:09 -0700, wrote:

> BAd thing about riding a big expense bike is you have to worry your
> bike and taking hour to lock up. That's why I ride a damn old cheap
>bike and I don't have to lock a bike. My bike is older than a homeless
>guy's bike.

Trust me, leave it unlocked around here and it will get stolen. Leave a
badly locked[1], 40 year old singlespeed coasterbrake that's lost it's
chaincase and whose chain appears to be solid rust, whose lighting fell
off in the 70s, in an inner city, and your chances of it getting nicked
are.. well, not quite even, but hardly zero either. If it has two wheels,
pedals, and a seat, someone will nick it when unlocked. Usually within the
hour.


Jasper

[1] And by that I mean a $5 ring lock, the kind that opens with the 'key'
(punched from sheet steel), a piece of metal wire[2], or a wellplaced
kick.

[2] When I was in primary school and I'd lost my key again, I used to walk
up to a teacher and ask for a biggish paperclip. This happened a few
times, even.

[Bill Baka]

Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On 31 May 2005 02:12:09 -0700, wrote:
>
>
>> BAd thing about riding a big expense bike is you have to worry your
>>bike and taking hour to lock up. That's why I ride a damn old cheap
>>bike and I don't have to lock a bike. My bike is older than a homeless
>>guy's bike.
>
>
> Trust me, leave it unlocked around here and it will get stolen. Leave a
> badly locked[1], 40 year old singlespeed coasterbrake that's lost it's
> chaincase and whose chain appears to be solid rust, whose lighting fell
> off in the 70s, in an inner city, and your chances of it getting nicked
> are.. well, not quite even, but hardly zero either. If it has two wheels,
> pedals, and a seat, someone will nick it when unlocked. Usually within the
> hour.
>
>
> Jasper
>
> [1] And by that I mean a $5 ring lock, the kind that opens with the 'key'
> (punched from sheet steel), a piece of metal wire[2], or a wellplaced
> kick.
>
> [2] When I was in primary school and I'd lost my key again, I used to walk
> up to a teacher and ask for a biggish paperclip. This happened a few
> times, even.

It doesn't even have to be the big city. I live in what was a total hick
town but is now starting to become a 'bedroom' community for Sacramento.
Somebody got the bright idea a few years back to dump all the ex-cons
and druggies in this area, so now if you park a bike in the rack at
Wal-mart it will be gone in under an hour. In one case someone locked
the front tire (quick release) and frame then went to shop. When that
person came out the seat (quick release) was missing. Some people will
steal anything, even with all the Wal-mart traffic watching as they go
in and out.
Bill Baka

[Mathias Koerber]

Bill Baka said the following on 8/6/2005 8:46:

> person came out the seat (quick release) was missing. Some people will
> steal anything, even with all the Wal-mart traffic watching as they go
> in and out.

Especially in places like this. The worst one can do is leave a bike in
a crowded area where there are no regulars who have a chance to remember
who the owner of a particular bike is.

[Bill Baka]

Mathias Koerber wrote:
> Bill Baka said the following on 8/6/2005 8:46:
>
>
>>person came out the seat (quick release) was missing. Some people will
>>steal anything, even with all the Wal-mart traffic watching as they go
>>in and out.
>
>
> Especially in places like this. The worst one can do is leave a bike in
> a crowded area where there are no regulars who have a chance to remember
> who the owner of a particular bike is.

Tons of people going in and out, most with cell phones and not one
thinks it is strange that some took my seat out and walked away with it?
Maybe people don't care anymore or calling 911 for somethink like that
gets them a big lecture from the cops, as in "We don't give a **** about
stolen bicycle parts, call us when a car gets stolen and you have a
plate number."
Bicycles get no respect.
Bill Baka

[John_Kane]

Bill Baka wrote:
> Mathias Koerber wrote:
> > Bill Baka said the following on 8/6/2005 8:46:
> >
> >
> >>person came out the seat (quick release) was missing. Some people will
> >>steal anything, even with all the Wal-mart traffic watching as they go
> >>in and out.
> >
> >
> > Especially in places like this. The worst one can do is leave a bike in
> > a crowded area where there are no regulars who have a chance to remember
> > who the owner of a particular bike is.
>
> Tons of people going in and out, most with cell phones and not one
> thinks it is strange that some took my seat out and walked away with it?
> Maybe people don't care anymore or calling 911 for somethink like that
> gets them a big lecture from the cops, as in "We don't give a **** about
> stolen bicycle parts, call us when a car gets stolen and you have a
> plate number."
> Bicycles get no respect.
> Bill Baka

I suspect that the people either didn't even notice or else they
assumed that the thief was the owner and was making sure the seat did
not get stolen. Unless the thief was a completely unlikely person
(homeless, heavily bearded, and pushing a loaded shopping cart I
probably would not think anything of it.

It's a bit like car alarms or breaking into a car with a coat hanger.
One simply assumes, in the first case, that the damn thing went off
because of the wind and in the second case, the owner left his keys in
the car. My boss and I once sent 15-20 minutes breaking into his car
with a coat hanger on a busy downtown street in Hamilton ON at in the
P.M. rush hour and no one binked an eye. We were in suits and looked
respectible.

John Kane
Kingston On

[Neil Brooks]

"John_Kane" > wrote:

>We were in suits and looked respectible.

Oxymoron ;-)

[John_Kane]

Neil Brooks wrote:
> "John_Kane" > wrote:
>
> >We were in suits and looked respectible.
>
> Oxymoron ;-)

Did you have to say that? Today is the first time I've had a suit on in
months. So much for encouraging me before the big meeting :(
John Kane
Kingston ON

[Neil Brooks]

"John_Kane" > wrote:

>
>
>Neil Brooks wrote:
>> "John_Kane" > wrote:
>>
>> >We were in suits and looked respectible.
>>
>> Oxymoron ;-)
>
>Did you have to say that? Today is the first time I've had a suit on in
>months. So much for encouraging me before the big meeting :(

You are not only a handsome man, but a powerful man as well.

They will hang on your every syllable.

(we cool?) ;-)

[Maggie]

Neil Brooks wrote:
> (we cool?) ;-)

LOL - You are too funny. I love to see how these threads evolve into
something that has nothing to do with the subject line. It is amazing.


Maggie

[lokey]

"John_Kane" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Bill Baka wrote:
>> Mathias Koerber wrote:
>> > Bill Baka said the following on 8/6/2005 8:46:
>> >
>> >
>> >>person came out the seat (quick release) was missing. Some people will
>> >>steal anything, even with all the Wal-mart traffic watching as they go
>> >>in and out.
>> >
>> >
>> > Especially in places like this. The worst one can do is leave a bike in
>> > a crowded area where there are no regulars who have a chance to
>> > remember
>> > who the owner of a particular bike is.
>>
>> Tons of people going in and out, most with cell phones and not one
>> thinks it is strange that some took my seat out and walked away with it?
>> Maybe people don't care anymore or calling 911 for somethink like that
>> gets them a big lecture from the cops, as in "We don't give a **** about
>> stolen bicycle parts, call us when a car gets stolen and you have a
>> plate number."
>
> I suspect that the people either didn't even notice or else they
> assumed that the thief was the owner and was making sure the seat did
> not get stolen. Unless the thief was a completely unlikely person
> (homeless, heavily bearded, and pushing a loaded shopping cart I
> probably would not think anything of it.

Don't assume. Toronto Police got into a bit of trouble a couple weeks back
for confiscating a homeless person's new bike. The disbelieved a transient
of no fixed address could have legally purchased a new bike.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2005/05/31/1064463-sun.html

A rough ride
Cops took panhandler's bicycle
By RADHIKA PANJWANI AND BRIAN GRAY, TORONTO SUN

'A Brampton real estate agent and a surveillance tape spoke up when Toronto
Police thought a homeless man was giving them the gears.

Loren Campbell says he used his savings from two months of panhandling to
buy himself a new red bicycle from Zellers on May 6.

But one week ago, police officers confiscated the bike at Eastern and Carlaw
Aves. because, Campbell said, they didn't believe him when he told them it
was his.

"They pepper-sprayed me," Campbell, 40, said. "I told them I had bought the
bike from a Zellers store and showed them the receipt."

But the numbers on the register tape had faded and police wouldn't take his
word for it, he said.

Real estate agent Roderick Stewart -- a frequent contributor to Campbell's
coffers over the last six months -- first heard the story Thursday when he
walked by the panhandler in his usual haunts on Yonge St. south of St. Clair
Ave.

"I believed him," Stewart said. "He knew dates and places so I checked it
out."

Stewart, 47, went to the Zellers at Victoria Park and Danforth Aves. and
staff there went through the surveillance tapes -- where they found visual
evidence of Campbell buying the bike.

So Stewart took the tape and a duplicate receipt to the 55 Division police
station at Coxwell Ave. and Dundas St. E. on Friday.

"They took it upstairs and I guess that was enough for them," Stewart said.

Police gave the $200 bike back yesterday but without the locks Campbell
said he needs to ensure his bike isn't stolen overnight.

"(The police) know how to take your stuff from you but they sure don't know
how to give them back, do they?" an irate Campbell said, waving the keys for
his lock on the steps of 55 Division.

Stewart said he would buy the homeless man some security for his one
worldly possession until police hand back the $70 lock Campbell insists they
still have. "Everything he has said has been truthful from the get-go,"
Stewart said.

Police at the station refused to comment yesterday and referred questions
to a police superintendent, who will review the case today.'

> It's a bit like car alarms or breaking into a car with a coat hanger.
> One simply assumes, in the first case, that the damn thing went off
> because of the wind and in the second case, the owner left his keys in
> the car. My boss and I once sent 15-20 minutes breaking into his car
> with a coat hanger on a busy downtown street in Hamilton ON at in the
> P.M. rush hour and no one binked an eye.

Yup. I once noted to a friend as we passed a man working on a corner
newspaper box that with a tool belt, a van and the attitude that you
belonged there, you could get away with anything. People would assume you
were supposed to be doing what you are doing.

If I were so inclined to steal a saddle I would walk up the bike, bend down and make like
I was adjusting the cables or such, stand and matter-of-factly remove the
post and saddle, and make a show of checking the lock before I left.

Anecdote: A few years ago I had some business downtown. I parked my bike in
'the Square'. In Guelph parlance 'the Square' isn't a square but a cockeyed
intersection on the hill that is the centre of town [yes, 'downtown' is on a
hill] with a fountain, benches, plaza and such.

Anyways I locked up, conducted by business and had some time to kill. So I
sat on a bench near my bike reading, enjoying the sun and a bottle of water.

I watch as a couple of kids [13 or so] converse. One is sitting on the bike
rack fiddling with the gear shifter of my bike idly as he talk to his
friend. He notices me watching him and asks if I know who's bike it is. I
tell him it's m,ine and he doesn't believe me. He says, 'Prove it' by
telling him what gear I left it in. I get up put my book and water away,
walk over, unlock it, give him an evil death-stare and ride off.
[i]
> We were in suits and looked
> respectible.

--
'Just because you're wearing a tie
Doesn't mean you're bloody important'
-chumbawamba

[Jasper Janssen]

On 31 May 2005 16:38:41 -0700, "gds" > wrote:

>Actually their coffee is pretty good. And most coffe drinkers like it
>hot to start with.

Which is why they were serving it at temperatures much higher than hot
coffee from a coffee machine normally is (IIRC, around 95 C, just under
boiling, whereas most coffee makers produce coffee at at best 70C),
despite warnings from the legal department that this could open them up to
liability. Which is the *real* backstory to the famous case, rather than
the usual implication of "god, look how incredibly litigious the US is!".
Also, incidentally, the judge found both parties to be partially guilty --
the woman for being careless, and Mickey for serving coffee that was very,
very hot for noo good reason at all.


Jasper

[Bill Baka]

John_Kane wrote:
>
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>>Mathias Koerber wrote:
>>
>>>Bill Baka said the following on 8/6/2005 8:46:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>person came out the seat (quick release) was missing. Some people will
>>>>steal anything, even with all the Wal-mart traffic watching as they go
>>>>in and out.
>>>
>>>
>>>Especially in places like this. The worst one can do is leave a bike in
>>>a crowded area where there are no regulars who have a chance to remember
>>>who the owner of a particular bike is.
>>
>>Tons of people going in and out, most with cell phones and not one
>>thinks it is strange that some took my seat out and walked away with it?
>>Maybe people don't care anymore or calling 911 for somethink like that
>>gets them a big lecture from the cops, as in "We don't give a **** about
>>stolen bicycle parts, call us when a car gets stolen and you have a
>>plate number."
>>Bicycles get no respect.
>>Bill Baka
>
>
> I suspect that the people either didn't even notice or else they
> assumed that the thief was the owner and was making sure the seat did
> not get stolen. Unless the thief was a completely unlikely person
> (homeless, heavily bearded, and pushing a loaded shopping cart I
> probably would not think anything of it.
>
> It's a bit like car alarms or breaking into a car with a coat hanger.
> One simply assumes, in the first case, that the damn thing went off
> because of the wind and in the second case, the owner left his keys in
> the car. My boss and I once sent 15-20 minutes breaking into his car
> with a coat hanger on a busy downtown street in Hamilton ON at in the
> P.M. rush hour and no one binked an eye. We were in suits and looked
> respectible.
>
> John Kane
> Kingston On
>
I can relate to the car incident since it has happened to me and, as you
said nobody even slowed down to look. So much for the neighborhood watch
idea. I have had 3 cars and 3 motorcycles stolen when I was living in
the Silicon Valley area. Add to that a few bikes, one of which was by a
screen door with my wife inside cooking. It was teenage kids, probably
on a dare since the police found the bike the next day, trashed almost
beyond recognition. Those are the kids I would love to see behind bars.
Stealing somebodys' favorite transportation just to destroy it not only
makes no sense, but says something about what kind of adult you will
have if they are not shown the consequence of their actions.
Sorry, rant mode off.
Bill (locks everything now) Baka

[Bill Baka]

Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On 31 May 2005 16:38:41 -0700, "gds" > wrote:
>
>
>>Actually their coffee is pretty good. And most coffe drinkers like it
>>hot to start with.
>
>
> Which is why they were serving it at temperatures much higher than hot
> coffee from a coffee machine normally is (IIRC, around 95 C, just under
> boiling, whereas most coffee makers produce coffee at at best 70C),
> despite warnings from the legal department that this could open them up to
> liability. Which is the *real* backstory to the famous case, rather than
> the usual implication of "god, look how incredibly litigious the US is!".
> Also, incidentally, the judge found both parties to be partially guilty --
> the woman for being careless, and Mickey for serving coffee that was very,
> very hot for noo good reason at all.
>
>
> Jasper
>
Actually, somebody did a study on the optimum temperature to brew coffee
and it came out to 182 F. Anything higher and some components start to
burn, and lower doesn't quite dissolve all the tasty stuff. Don't even
try to ask me where I read it since it was about 20 years ago. I do
remember that those percolators that you put on a fire and watched the
coffee boil up into the little glass thing always tasted funny to me
when I took one camping. A very minor electronic thermometer would keep
the coffee at 182 or even 160 if desired and customers could ask for
'hot' or 'really hot' coffee. Wimps could ask for 130 F and chug it.
Too many damn lawyers either way. From what I heard the fat broad
claimed it ruined her sex life for a week or something to that effect.
I also heard that due to her looks, "What sex life?".
This country is lacking in common sense.
Bill Baka

[Jasper Janssen]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 18:32:05 -0700, Bill Baka > wrote:
>Jasper Janssen wrote:
>> On 31 May 2005 16:38:41 -0700, "gds" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Actually their coffee is pretty good. And most coffe drinkers like it
>>>hot to start with.
>>
>>
>> Which is why they were serving it at temperatures much higher than hot
>> coffee from a coffee machine normally is (IIRC, around 95 C, just under
>> boiling, whereas most coffee makers produce coffee at at best 70C),
>> despite warnings from the legal department that this could open them up to
>> liability. Which is the *real* backstory to the famous case, rather than
>> the usual implication of "god, look how incredibly litigious the US is!".
>> Also, incidentally, the judge found both parties to be partially guilty --
>> the woman for being careless, and Mickey for serving coffee that was very,
>> very hot for noo good reason at all.

>Actually, somebody did a study on the optimum temperature to brew coffee
>and it came out to 182 F. Anything higher and some components start to

*Brew*. Even if true, the brewing temperature is not the serving
temperature.

>burn, and lower doesn't quite dissolve all the tasty stuff. Don't even
>try to ask me where I read it since it was about 20 years ago. I do
>remember that those percolators that you put on a fire and watched the
>coffee boil up into the little glass thing always tasted funny to me
>when I took one camping. A very minor electronic thermometer would keep
>the coffee at 182 or even 160 if desired and customers could ask for
>'hot' or 'really hot' coffee. Wimps could ask for 130 F and chug it.
>Too many damn lawyers either way. From what I heard the fat broad
>claimed it ruined her sex life for a week or something to that effect.
>I also heard that due to her looks, "What sex life?".

Right, the 'fat broad'. The 79 year old woman who suffered third degree
burns to her genitals, requiring skin grafts. Just think how your sex life
would be affected if you had to have skin grafts on your penis.

Not to mention all the times when *McDonalds employees* spilled the
scalding hot (third degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds -- ie instantly. There
is *no time* to get your clothes off before you're extremely seriously
injured) coffee on everyone from consumers to infants.

>This country is lacking in common sense.

No, it's not.

http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
http://www.gtla.org/public/cases/mcdonalds.html


Jasper

[Bill Baka]

Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 18:32:05 -0700, Bill Baka > wrote:
>
>>Jasper Janssen wrote:
>>
>>>On 31 May 2005 16:38:41 -0700, "gds" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Actually their coffee is pretty good. And most coffe drinkers like it
>>>>hot to start with.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which is why they were serving it at temperatures much higher than hot
>>>coffee from a coffee machine normally is (IIRC, around 95 C, just under
>>>boiling, whereas most coffee makers produce coffee at at best 70C),
>>>despite warnings from the legal department that this could open them up to
>>>liability. Which is the *real* backstory to the famous case, rather than
>>>the usual implication of "god, look how incredibly litigious the US is!".
>>>Also, incidentally, the judge found both parties to be partially guilty --
>>>the woman for being careless, and Mickey for serving coffee that was very,
>>>very hot for noo good reason at all.
>
>
>>Actually, somebody did a study on the optimum temperature to brew coffee
>>and it came out to 182 F. Anything higher and some components start to
>
>
> *Brew*. Even if true, the brewing temperature is not the serving
> temperature.

There actually was a scientific story about it, only due to a lab
chemist who liked coffee and decided to find he best temperature for his
taste. It snowballed and some other companies did studies. Google it,
even though you might get the usual 20 million hits. I like mine served
at about 140, but that is so I can chug the first few cups without
waiting for a cool down time.
>
>
>>burn, and lower doesn't quite dissolve all the tasty stuff. Don't even
>>try to ask me where I read it since it was about 20 years ago. I do
>>remember that those percolators that you put on a fire and watched the
>>coffee boil up into the little glass thing always tasted funny to me
>>when I took one camping. A very minor electronic thermometer would keep
>>the coffee at 182 or even 160 if desired and customers could ask for
>>'hot' or 'really hot' coffee. Wimps could ask for 130 F and chug it.
>>Too many damn lawyers either way. From what I heard the fat broad
>>claimed it ruined her sex life for a week or something to that effect.
>>I also heard that due to her looks, "What sex life?".
>
>
> Right, the 'fat broad'. The 79 year old woman who suffered third degree
> burns to her genitals, requiring skin grafts. Just think how your sex life
> would be affected if you had to have skin grafts on your penis.

First let me point out that third degree burns are the type where fire
actually 'burns' the skin off or leaves a layer of charcoal, so the
worst she could have gotten was second degree scalding burns. Again, she
was 79, so what sex life?
>
> Not to mention all the times when *McDonalds employees* spilled the
> scalding hot (third degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds -- ie instantly. There
> is *no time* to get your clothes off before you're extremely seriously
> injured) coffee on everyone from consumers to infants.

Do us all a favor and look up third degree burns so you know at least a
little about what you are talking about. I got my left arm covered in a
scalding water 212 degrees from a defective hot water/radiator heater,
and was peeling skin for a month, under some serious bandages and
healing goop. 160 comes nowhere close, that I know for a fact. She was
just a scam artist with a better lawyer than McDonalds, who thought the
suit would be thrown out of court and didn't waste their top lawyers on
the case.
>
>
>>This country is lacking in common sense.

On that part I will agree with you.
>
>
> No, it's not.

You must be a Republican who worships GWB.
Bill Baka
>
> http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
> http://www.gtla.org/public/cases/mcdonalds.html
>
>
> Jasper

[gds]

Bill Baka wrote:
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 18:32:05 -0700, Bill Baka > wrote:
> >
> >>Jasper Janssen wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 31 May 2005 16:38:41 -0700, "gds" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Actually their coffee is pretty good. And most coffe drinkers like it
> >>>>hot to start with.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Which is why they were serving it at temperatures much higher than hot
> >>>coffee from a coffee machine normally is (IIRC, around 95 C, just under
> >>>boiling, whereas most coffee makers produce coffee at at best 70C),
> >>>despite warnings from the legal department that this could open them up to
> >>>liability. Which is the *real* backstory to the famous case, rather than
> >>>the usual implication of "god, look how incredibly litigious the US is!".
> >>>Also, incidentally, the judge found both parties to be partially guilty --
> >>>the woman for being careless, and Mickey for serving coffee that was very,
> >>>very hot for noo good reason at all.
> >
> >
> >>Actually, somebody did a study on the optimum temperature to brew coffee
> >>and it came out to 182 F. Anything higher and some components start to
> >
> >
> > *Brew*. Even if true, the brewing temperature is not the serving
> > temperature.
>
> There actually was a scientific story about it, only due to a lab
> chemist who liked coffee and decided to find he best temperature for his
> taste. It snowballed and some other companies did studies. Google it,
> even though you might get the usual 20 million hits. I like mine served
> at about 140, but that is so I can chug the first few cups without
> waiting for a cool down time.
> >
> >
> >>burn, and lower doesn't quite dissolve all the tasty stuff. Don't even
> >>try to ask me where I read it since it was about 20 years ago. I do
> >>remember that those percolators that you put on a fire and watched the
> >>coffee boil up into the little glass thing always tasted funny to me
> >>when I took one camping. A very minor electronic thermometer would keep
> >>the coffee at 182 or even 160 if desired and customers could ask for
> >>'hot' or 'really hot' coffee. Wimps could ask for 130 F and chug it.
> >>Too many damn lawyers either way. From what I heard the fat broad
> >>claimed it ruined her sex life for a week or something to that effect.
> >>I also heard that due to her looks, "What sex life?".
> >
> >
> > Right, the 'fat broad'. The 79 year old woman who suffered third degree
> > burns to her genitals, requiring skin grafts. Just think how your sex life
> > would be affected if you had to have skin grafts on your penis.
>
> First let me point out that third degree burns are the type where fire
> actually 'burns' the skin off or leaves a layer of charcoal, so the
> worst she could have gotten was second degree scalding burns. Again, she
> was 79, so what sex life?
> >
> > Not to mention all the times when *McDonalds employees* spilled the
> > scalding hot (third degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds -- ie instantly. There
> > is *no time* to get your clothes off before you're extremely seriously
> > injured) coffee on everyone from consumers to infants.
>
> Do us all a favor and look up third degree burns so you know at least a
> little about what you are talking about. I got my left arm covered in a
> scalding water 212 degrees from a defective hot water/radiator heater,
> and was peeling skin for a month, under some serious bandages and
> healing goop. 160 comes nowhere close, that I know for a fact. She was
> just a scam artist with a better lawyer than McDonalds, who thought the
> suit would be thrown out of court and didn't waste their top lawyers on
> the case.
> >
> >
> >>This country is lacking in common sense.
>
> On that part I will agree with you.
> >
> >
> > No, it's not.
>
> You must be a Republican who worships GWB.
> Bill Baka
> >
> > http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
> > http://www.gtla.org/public/cases/mcdonalds.html
> >
> >
> > Jasper


You know essentially the same case was brought against McDonalds in the
UK. There, in a much less lititgous society the judge threw it out as
having no merit. One must be very carefull to understand that you go to
court here in the US to get a "decision" not necessarily "justice."

[Bill Baka]

gds wrote:
>
> You know essentially the same case was brought against McDonalds in the
> UK. There, in a much less lititgous society the judge threw it out as
> having no merit. One must be very carefull to understand that you go to
> court here in the US to get a "decision" not necessarily "justice."
>
Justice is rarely served in this country. I have seen a judge give a kid
a warning and then throw an adult in jail for 6 months for the same
thing. Our judges seem to go on their mood of the day than the letter of
the law. The big government is D.C. (not Bush, but everyone else) is
beginning to see what a waste some of these suits are. Let's hope we get
one where the suit filer (victim???,hah) gets both fined and jail time
for wasting so much courts time and money. I am not against real suits,
but hate the "Let's make money by suing someone." type.
Bill Baka

[Bill Sornson]

Bill Baka wrote:
> The big government is D.C. (not Bush, but everyone
> else) is beginning to see what a waste some of these suits are.

Bill, if you'd open your pea brain to /any/ new information, then you'd know
that Bush is a leading proponent of ending or at least greatly restricting
frivolous law suits.

I swear, he could personally snatch a baby seal from impending clubbing, and
you'd still find fault with it.

Blatant Anti-Bush Bias Bill Baka Balks, Babbles, Bores...

[[email protected]]

Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
>
> Not to mention all the times when *McDonalds employees* spilled the
> scalding hot (third degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds -- ie instantly. There
> is *no time* to get your clothes off before you're extremely seriously
> injured) coffee on everyone from consumers to infants.

I think we've given enough attention to the coffee issue. We need to
do something for the tea drinkers.

Any self-respecting tea drinker knows that the water used to make tea
should be at a full, rolling boil. That's 212 Fahrenheit, folks, and
every day, tea drinker (including little old ladies in big white hats)
subject themselves to this terrible, terrible hazard. The horror must
end!

Or, to put it another way: Coffee drinkers are wimps! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

[Bill Baka]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>>The big government is D.C. (not Bush, but everyone
>>else) is beginning to see what a waste some of these suits are.
>
>
> Bill, if you'd open your pea brain to /any/ new information, then you'd know
> that Bush is a leading proponent of ending or at least greatly restricting
> frivolous law suits.
>
> I swear, he could personally snatch a baby seal from impending clubbing, and
> you'd still find fault with it.
>
> Blatant Anti-Bush Bias Bill Baka Balks, Babbles, Bores...
>
>
Yeah,
Because of his big business tie. He ****s up everything he gets involved
in. And who are we going to blame when the news 10 years from now starts
with "Another soldier was killed in Iraq/nam?".
Bill Baka

[Bill Sornson]

wrote:

> I think we've given enough attention to the coffee issue. We need to
> do something for the tea drinkers.

Break the news to their parents that they're gay?

[Claire Petersky]

wrote in message
. com>...

>Any self-respecting tea drinker knows that the water used to make tea
>should be at a full, rolling boil. That's 212 Fahrenheit, folks, and
>every day, tea drinker (including little old ladies in big white hats)
>subject themselves to this terrible, terrible hazard. The horror must
>end!

This is why, while only 172 cyclists were killed in in the UK in 1999, in
the next year (sorry, problems with the database, couldn't get the query to
work for the same year for both), more than a thousand Britons were
hospitalized with tea-related injuries.

(source: http://www.hassandlass.org.uk/query/intro2.htm)

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referr*al/Cpetersky

[Bill Baka]

wrote:
>
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
>>
>>Not to mention all the times when *McDonalds employees* spilled the
>>scalding hot (third degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds -- ie instantly. There
>>is *no time* to get your clothes off before you're extremely seriously
>>injured) coffee on everyone from consumers to infants.
>
>
> I think we've given enough attention to the coffee issue. We need to
> do something for the tea drinkers.
>
> Any self-respecting tea drinker knows that the water used to make tea
> should be at a full, rolling boil. That's 212 Fahrenheit, folks, and
> every day, tea drinker (including little old ladies in big white hats)
> subject themselves to this terrible, terrible hazard. The horror must
> end!
>
> Or, to put it another way: Coffee drinkers are wimps! ;-)
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
I have been scalded by 212 degree F water and had it stick to my arm
since I was wearing a Minnesota cold night robe and it got soaked so the
water stayed on me. I got some really bad 'SECOND' degree burns and the
skin on my arm was pussing up and peeling and took about a month to heal
but these were bot third degree burns. The clinic I went to said that if
they had been third degree there would have been skin charring and they
probably would have given me an ambulance ride to the burn ward in the
hospital. I healed with no scarring after 2 painful weeks after an
encounter with 212 F water that stuck so it makes me all the more wide
to the fact that the fat broad had a good lawyer on call. Who the hell
cares about sex with a 69 year old sweat hog anyway? A 90 bachelor?
Bill Baka

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > I think we've given enough attention to the coffee issue. We need to
> > do something for the tea drinkers.
>
> Break the news to their parents that they're gay?

Looks like some coffee drinker's getting defensive! ;-)

BTW, the word "gay" may mean something entirely different to little old
ladies in big white hats.

(Don't you hate the Gresham's Law effect on language?)

- Frank Krygowski

[Bill Sornson]

wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think we've given enough attention to the coffee issue. We need
>>> to do something for the tea drinkers.
>>
>> Break the news to their parents that they're gay?
>
> Looks like some coffee drinker's getting defensive! ;-)

Defensive? Me?? Whaddya mean?!?

(Pot's half consumed.)

(Carafe-type, that is.)

> BTW, the word "gay" may mean something entirely different to little
> old ladies in big white hats.

Well good. They /should/ drink tea. :)

> (Don't you hate the Gresham's Law effect on language?)

Got a radar ticket on Gresham once. Had quite an effect on MY language for
a few days.

(Pacific Beach humor attempt; might have pulled something from the stretch.)

Bill "used tea bags as emergency helmet pads?" S.